User talk:Indianprithvi

August 2008
Dear Mr Prithvi, Please read the cited books by C. Veerabhadra Rao, B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao, Kotta Bhavaiah etc., We can discuss at length later. Nobody disputed that Chalukyas were Kshatriyas. After their eclipse in Kammanadu, they merged with existing warrior clans. This applies only to Kammanadu region and this is the reason you can find a few common surnames (e.g., sagi, sagineni) in Raju, Velama and Kamma groups. After the massacre of Kshatriyas (whom Kammas supported with gusto) by Velamas at Jallipalli, the residual Kshatriyas of Dharanikota and Jallipalli merged with Kammas. Chalukya title was used by Vasireddy and Suryadevara clans in their inscriptions. There are many such evidences which you will find in the books by the fore-mentioned authors.Kumarrao (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr Prithvi,

I regret to say that you are mistaken. You are trying to understand history with 21st century mindset. Have you heard of Sagi Gannama Nayudu ? We are not talking about rigid caste considerations but political compulsions of medieval times. I suggest you first read the third volume of Vignana Sarvasvamu, Charitra, published by Telugu University, Hyderabad. It seems you have also not read the book of C. Veerabhadra Rao fully. I promise you more interesting discussion after you read this stuff. Cheers.Kumarrao (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats ridiculous arguement by Kumarrao who mixes history as per his liking. He has mixed Dadi Gannama of 12-13th century (a shudra) with Sagi Ganamma's name who belong 2 15th century n Kshatriya. Former was senani in kakatiya while Sagi Gannama was with Gajapati dynasty.

Dear Kumarrao, Well, Real Kshatriyas never merge into a chathurtha varna (Kammas r someone else), in worst case of defeat either they kill themselves r run away. As Kshatriyas used to hav concubines (even from shudra varna), Might b Sons of Shudra concubines might have merged into Chathurtha varna as they r not considered as Kshatriyas (even if ther father is Kshatriya). ther r lot of such examples in history itself. Btw, I would like to tell that ther r 8-9 Kshatriya zamindari clans who testify that there ancestors moved away from dharanikota after defeat thats why ther are surnames like Guntur, Dantuluri, Kota Jampana etc in Kshatriyas which r related to Guntur district. Even lot of historians also mention ab these 8-9 kshatriya clans as Kota lineage only coz thats the real fact.

Chalukya title may b used by anyone, Chalukyas trusted Feudatories might hav got that title as honour. Even Kakatiya founder Gundayana had Rasthrakuta title, (Rashtrakuta Gundayan) but that doesnt make him descendent of Rasthrakuta. Ananda Gajapathi Raju (Vizianagaram) was called Abhinava Andhra Bhoja (Bhoja of Parmara dyansty), its just honrary title. Using titles doesnt make them descendents, ther Gotra, Vansh really matters. Indianprithvi (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kamma
Dear Mr Prithvi,

You have misunderstood the contents of the article.


 * The article did not mention anywhere that Kammas are/were Kshatriyas. Many inscriptions and literature mentioned that they were of 'Chaturtha Kula'.


 * The article talked about a possibility that Buddist kurmis of Bihar migrated to Karmarashtram.


 * I totally agree with you regarding Chalukya Chodas and the input of Durga Prasad. However, it would not alter or affect my position.


 * It is a historical fact that a section of Haihayas and Chalukyas in the region of Kammanadu merged with Kammas because of political compulsions. This does not apply to Chalukyas present in other regions of Andhra.


 * Each and every sentence written in the article was supported by evidence, proof and citation of books by authoritative sources not biased persons.


 * Seems there is some reluctance on your part to accept the fact that a few Haihayas and Chalukyas joined Kamma social group. There was nothing odd in that. We got to place ourselves in 11th century Andhra to understand the logic.


 * I am reverting your edit. Any further edits by you regarding this point will be taken to administrators.Kumarrao (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thnx Kumar, im more satisfied about your clear reply in my talk page. As you only said, "It is a historical fact that a section of Haihayas and Chalukyas in the region of Kammanadu merged with Kammas because of political compulsions. This does not apply to Chalukyas present in other regions of Andhra." So plz make change acoording to your statement above, therz lot of difference between "section of Chalukyas & Haiyas merged" n "chalukyas & Haiyas merged". I Hope as a good historian U agree to this point. I am making change as per ur statements only so that there is no disambiguity. Thnx.
 * That is reasonable. I agree. The original sentence also means the same. "Chalukyas of Kanmmanadu" denotes that it applies only to those persons existing in Guntur and Prakasam districts etc.Kumarrao (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Khatri
Indianprithvi, I find many sources that explicitly say that Khatri is an independent merchant caste. Yet the nut Jayvegas seems to be convinced of the ruling and martial lineage of his caste. This should be an indicator that many nuts such as Jayvegas may have previously slipped in their community perhaps for glory and I urge you to look through each community and verify that they are indeed Kshatriya. Feel free to stick a fact tag or remove uncited text. Trips (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Trips, Thnx for intimating. Yep I know Khatris are not Kshatriyas. But punjabi meaning makes it difficult to argue. Let him be convinced, as he is providing som citations. If he further vandalises, then admin wil intervene.

Thnx Indianprithvi (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rajus
Dear Indianprithvi,

You are welcome to get the IDs verified by Wiki administrators, if you are doubtful. Meanwhile, please provide tanngible answers to my questions.Kumarrao (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock report on Kumarrao
Hello Indianprithvi. I noticed your signature on this report, but since you didn't leave a comment, I'm not sure if you are endorsing it. Perhaps you can add some text at Suspected sock puppets/Kumarrao to clarify what position you are taking. As an admin, I am getting set to close the report and it is hard to figure out what the problem is exactly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Indianprithvi, It is extremely unfortunate that you filed a report to Wiki administrators making a false allegation of Sockpuppetry against me. All these days, I have been involved in discussion with you without making any edits in your contributions. I pointed out that some of your contributions to Rajus lacked historical authenticity and undesirable inclusions such as Hindu gods' pictures of Rama and Krishna. Instead of engaging in meaningful discussion, you are more concerned about your suspicions and prejudices. I would like to stop interaction with you. Thanks and cheers.Kumarrao (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Kumarrao, I hav already mentioned in Talk:Rajus that I hav not contributed whatever stuff you raised questions on, they hav been contributed by 4-5 authors, recently I hav contributed few with appropriate citations. I was justifying that most of stuff contributed by earlier authors were correct and I hav also agreed on few of questions raised by you. The user MigratoryRefRequest which seemed to be dummy ID n who used similar phrases n historicals terms like u n was continuosly disgusting with his POVs on a particular caste(Race) genes compelled me to know whether both IDs r of same user from Admin.Indianprithvi (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Carry on. Cheers.Kumarrao (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Kota kings
I did not notice the pages you referred. The same author (Yashoda Devi) gives two contradictory views. One points to Sudra origin of Kota kings. The other mentions that a few clans of Andhra Kshtriyas descended from Kota vamsa. Difficult to reconcile. I do agree that there are some more sources that point towards linkage between Kota Vamsa and Kshatriya clans. Hence, the matter still remains controversial. I added this sentence in Kamma (caste) article.Kumarrao (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also noticed your accusations of bias against Kotta Bhaviah Chaudary, which is extremely unfortunate. I take it as your ignorance of Mr Chaudary who spent 14 years in research, spending enormous amounts of his own money, sifting through inscriptions, manuals, manuscripts, Kaifiyats etc all over AP, TN and Karnataka. Read his three large volumes of "Kammavari Charitra". You will know many interesting things about Rajus too.Kumarrao (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to your message on my talk page.
Hi Prithvi,

Thanks for your message. I will definitely try and help in maintaining the article cleanly. I wrote the comment on the history page of the article Varma as Bengali Kshatriyas were not mentioned in the article prior to my edit. You also stated that you put in the names of SD Burman, RD Burman in the article. Actually, I put in the names of SD Burman, RD Burman and Nabadwipchandra Dev Burman along with the info about The Kings of Tripura in one of my previous edits. See 18:44, 8 July 2009 Parthashome (Some info added). As far as the use of the title in other parts of India is concerned, many North Indians other than the Bengali Kshatriyas also use it. Mahadevi Varma would be an example. But since there is no particular clan like the Bengalis or the Rajus who use the title in North India, I did not mention this explicitly. Some Nepali Kshatriyas also use the title and I have included it in the new edit.

You are doing a good job by keeping out the vandals. keep it up as I am not always around. I was almost dormant for 2 years due to various reasons.

Parthashome (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome


 * I was not around. So the delay. A page on Bengali kshatriyas would be great but the problem might be finding resource for the article. If some good verifiable resources are found, I will definitely want to go ahead with the article. I have tried to find some but have failed. If you find some, I will be glad to assist you on this issueParthashome (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As of now I dont hav much info on Bengali kshatriyas, as n when i get solid info on it I will definitely help u in preparing the Bengali Kshatriya WP. All the best

Indianprithvi (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thurston
I do not dispute your Kshatriya theories. Learn to respect well-known and authoritative historians. If you do not agree with Thurston, provide your argument with necessary references. Your reference to Kamma and Velama smack of prejudice. Kammanadu/Kammarashtram existed since the times of Christ. Read historians such as C. Virabhadra Rao. The name "Kamma" got ascribed to farmers who turned warriors since 10th century. Kamma article clearly mentions that they are Shudras with historical evidences. Wanton glory is in vain. If you read medieval Andhra history you would know how Velamas treated Kshatriyas in battles (E.g., Jallipalli Kshatriyas and Vijayanagar Kshatriyas). It was Kammas who always sided with Kshatriyas for which they paid a heavy price (killing of Kapaneedu). Kumarrao (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao, You seem to be a confused guy. You yourself are contradicting your statements. Ia am not talking about kammarattam(region) You agreed Kamma caste came from 10th century. But historical inscriptions say Rajus Existed since 5-6th century. I always respect Mr. Thurston. But history/statements are not taken from single author. Its being considered basing on majoritarian historians consensus. Dont blindly argue basing on a single author statements. Indianprithvi (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have gone overboard with your prejudice. A cursory look at your Wiki contributions show that 98% of them are related to Kshatriya/Rajus. That betrays your mindset, although it is not wrong to write about only one aspect. On the contrary, my contributions range from Andhra cuisine, Vedas, Indian history, South India, Andhra history, Telugu language, Telugu script, medieval history, Alexander, Porus etc., See the arguments I had with some Users regarding defense of Telugu view point in articles related to Origin of Vijayanagar empire, Telugu language and Telugu script. Do not use words such as "Confused" about fellow Wiki users. You are also trying to use abusive language which is against Wiki standards. No one bans you editing any article in Wiki let alone social groups of India. It seems you are too uncomfortable with facts. Let us not forget we are in 21st century. If you have any historical evidence for anything positive or negative, no one stops you from editing any article with suitable proof. You are welcome to contradict Thurston with evidences. Wiki respects even individual opinions. Majority / minority views are both considered. Please be objective. That is what I try to be in all articles you mentioned. Contradict me with proof. I shall gladly agree.Kumarrao (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kumarrao, No offence intended or meant by me, it was plain US slang words. It has happened many times that u had put up half baked theories which I corrected, You too agreed most of them. I do contribute to very few (around25-30 wikis) as I believe in putting genuine facts rather than half baked theories. I hav also contributed positively to more than one caste. I have got some interesting facts to contradict Mr Thurston's book stmnt. Hope it clears ur vision n satisfy. Plz refer to rajus talk page for my explanations and corrections. 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply re: your post on my talk page
First and foremost please maintain civility and assume good faith. You need not take any edits which are not to your liking as an attack on a particular topic, Rajus for instance. You need not create aspersions or theories about the origin of a particular community. It hardly takes any time for people to stoop down. If this were to be followed, Wikipedia would end up being a trash can of hidden agendas instead of the reliable encyclopaedia it is trying to become. Do let me know in case of any clarifications. Cheers --14:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sickening Mindset
It is with great revulsion to your sickening mindset I give this rejoinder. The very fact that you raised an irrelevant issue to vilify and malign a social group of AP reflects your perverted thinking. Your reaction arises out of intolerance to an edit made with proper citation. If you are a logical guy, you would contradict the edit with your well-supported arguments. I did not dispute your other inputs with proper references. On the contrary, in an irrelevant manner, you referred to an inscription in which two concubines of Kota Betaraja made offerings to a deity. Their father was one Yerramanayaka. There was no reference to his varna/caste/gotra etc. In medieval AP nayaka title was used by social groups such as Kamma, Telaga, Kapu, Velama, Balija etc. This guy could be from any one of these groups. Even if we assume Yerramanayaka was a Kamma, how does it help you in refuting the sentence of Edgar Thurston? Assume this: Rajus and Rajputs are same as you yourself would gladly admit. Shall we start counting how many Raju/Rajput concubines Muslim sultans had from 800 AD to 1700 AD (Jodhabai was the most celebrated concubine/wife of Akbar. Please read the section "Matrimonial alliances" in Akbar)? How many Raju women were offered to Muslims as wives/concubines to buy peace? I am sure you pretty well know. Do you know that Devaraya (you consider Vijayanagar kings as Kshatriyas) offered his daughter to Bahmani Sultan to buy peace? I hate to argue like this and I would not take this line of offence to repudiate your edits in articles such as Kamma (caste). You repeated the theory that I am a caste fanatic. A cursory look of the edits made by you and me since we got into Wiki clearly shows who is caste centered. My advice: Keep your antipathy to others in your mind but do not pour it into your writings.Kumarrao (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr Kumarrao,

Who puts contradictary/ half knowledged statements, this can be easily verified from Wiki History. For you kind info I gave 6 clear justifications/evidences on the discussion page Talk:Rajus itself. Before making any change I always justified with proper citations, you have accepted them most, even I have accepted yours when there was a logic/rational. I have clearly given the citations/justification for your edits and clearly justified why they were baseless. on contrary you never justified with proper citation to questions and even reverted mine/other editors edits just like that. It clearly tells who is narrow minded. You never gave me justification in regard to: 1) when Kamma as caste came (historians say its 12-13th century only) 2) You never respected Shakuntala devi's clear statement on Kota kings.

I also asked you to read complete descriptions in Historian books as some times there is confusion, Reg reference to inscription: I never intended to offend caste it was just ref to som odd inscription, You only clearly stated several times, only Kammas supported Kshatriya Rajus during medieval while Velamas were rivalries and also basing on region (Kammanadu-Guntur), I refered that.

I again Reiterate that I restrict to few wiki page just because I believe in putting Genuine/Logical content, it doesnot mean castiest. I dont believ in putting half baked theories like you in another group/communities. Applying one theory for one caste and another theory for others is a castiest attitude which you hav been following may be UNKNOWINGLY. My point is well supported by guys of Reddy & Kapu community who branded you as caste biased and not by me initially. Indianprithvi (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Old proverb: You can wake up a person who is asleep but not one who pretends to be asleep.Kumarrao (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In Telugu some saying is ther "Gulivinta poosa avatali vaalni vekirinchidanta". It makes me laugh when a person who doesnt stick to a logic talks about logics. :) Indianprithvi (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajus, redux
Please stop adding off-topic nonsense to Rajus. It would also assist if you used solid sources to support your points rather than, for example, trying to verify a general statement of royal connections to a biography concerning one politician. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kamma (caste)
If you wish to remove sourced content from the article Kamma (caste), please discuss it on the Talk page first and explain your reasons - and if the consensus agrees with you, the material can be removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
Do not post uncivil personal attacks or insults against other Wikipedia editors, as you did at User talk:Sitush. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and do not post messages in that style again - if you do, you will be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that there has been much discussion at Talk:Rajus and other pages on what constitutes reliable sources for this type of material. Many sources (particularly very old ones) have been deemed unreliable by consensus, while others have been deemed reliable. If you disagree with the current consensus on content, you need to discuss your objections first and present your sources for examination for reliability. Do not just edit-war back to previous versions that you prefer yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Rajus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re
I will go through and have a look, and I'll respond at Talk:Rajus. It'll be a few hours before I can review everything in detail, but when I do I'll give my take on the situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 12:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass or personally attacking other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Your comment "Mr Sitush is citing some unknown books and writing statements to hurt Rajus community" was unacceptable. You have been told to drop the personal accusations, and you have not listened. When your block expires, please discuss your content disagreements without making allegations of bad faith against other editors, or you will find yourself blocked for longer, or possibly even topic-banned in line with the notice shown above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dantuluri


The article Dantuluri has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * [Fails WP:GNG. Just another Indian name. No reliable sources that discuss it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dantuluri for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dantuluri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dantuluri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sitush (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)